Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

cold fjord writes "The Washington Examiner reports, 'Oregon ... signed up just 44 people for insurance through November, despite spending more than $300 million on its state-based exchange. The state's exchange had the fewest sign-ups in the nation, according to a new report today by the Department of Health and Human Services. The weak number of sign-ups undercuts two major defenses of Obamacare from its supporters. One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states. But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants. Another defense of the Obama administration has attributed the troubled rollout of Obamacare to the obstruction of Republican governors who wanted to see the law fail as well as a lack of funding. But Oregon is a Democratic state that embraced Obamacare early and enthusiastically.'"

Moron, if you do anything for pay and therefore end up with any posessions you are by definition a "capitalist"

To not be so means you would be willing to share everything you have with anyone else at their leisure.

So unless you are willing to let me borrow free of charge your tooth brush, your car, your spare kidney, your house, your wife, or your 16 year old daughter you are a freaking, dyed in the wool.......capitalist.

Getting paid for work is not capitalistic. Did you notice that every country that tried "socialism" or "communism" has always maintained currency, and people were paid, regardless of whether the government answered to the people or the corporations.

The US is communist, but rather than the government nationalizing the corporations, the corporations bought the government. Different path to the same result. Oppression by the government of the people.

Moron, if you do anything for pay and therefore end up with any posessions you are by definition a "capitalist"

No, that is not want a capitalist is. A capitalist is someone who invests in businesses. This investment is called "capital". Investment is usually (but not always) in the form of stock. Most Americans are capitalists, by owning shares directly, or indirectly through a pension plan.

In this world, we only have red pills and blue pills. Wonder what happens if you take both?

It becomes a purple pill and your acid reflux gets better. (Which, coincidentally, is what would happen if the red/blue states and red/blue Representatives actually started working together - you know, for the good of the *whole* country.)

It becomes a purple pill and your acid reflux gets better. (Which, coincidentally, is what would happen if the red/blue states and red/blue Representatives actually started working together - you know, for the good of the *whole* country.)

That makes for a great slogan, and for a range of things it might even work. The problem comes in that the US population tends to be more or less evenly divided as to what constitutes what is best for the good of the whole country, and those visions of what is best are very far apart in some cases. It is like one of the explanations of the difference between the US and Europe. Both value freedom and equality, but Europe has traditionally valued equality more, and the US has valued freedom more. The results lead to different places.

An almost unfathomable gap divides public attitudes on basic issues involving gender, race, religion and politics in America, fueled by dramatic ideological and partisan divisions that offer the prospect of more of the bitter political battles that played out in Washington this month.

A new ABC News/Fusion poll, marking the launch of the Fusion television network, finds vast differences among groups in trust in government, immigration policy and beyond, including basic views on issues such as the role of religion and the value of diversity in politics, treatment of women in the workplace and the opportunities afforded to minorities in society more broadly.

It might be best if more decisions were pushed down to the state level and let the states go their separate ways on various policies. Then people can vote with their feet. That will likely result in bluer "blue states," and redder "red states." That may be playing out now between California and Texas.

The problem comes in that the US population tends to be more or less evenly divided as to what constitutes what is best for the good of the whole country, and those visions of what is best are very far apart in some cases.

THere is definitely something to that but there are several things on the side that are neither red nor blue issues but that most of the country does get behind. If we could stop framing everything as a red vs blue issue, we could move forward on the non partisan issues without worrying that the 'bad guys' are going to 'win'.

The REAL split is between the Cities and Not the Cities. And goes back quite a while, at least half a century.

The operating level of political difference is really at the County Level, not the State level.

Case in point, look at all the Secession movements: "Jefferson" (i.e. Northern California), the current Colorado secession efforts, even the fledgeling Maryland effort for the western-most counties. All are effectively de-franchised by the sheer numbers in other state districts, and have no poltical effect on the State at all

Technology allows Government to be more effective at the lower level: let it.

LOL! The author obviously knows nothing about Oregon. Oregon is not a Democratic state. Portland is a city with a high population density of lefties surrounded by a sparsely populated state of Teabaggers.

Stinky poo.... was news for nerds.

If a state government trolled out a web site for c.40 people to thetune of 300 million dollars something is astoundingly wrong.Do the math against the population of Oregon in 2013, approximately 3,899,353.

Some that read News for Nerds recall the bubble where Dot/Bomb companiesleft an economic wasteland behind them. I cannot convince myself that these fundswere spent in Oregon and I cannot convince myself that Oregon has not beenassaulted by financial thugs...

It seems to me that this debacle says more about the practice of having any and all government function handed off to private contractors, much more than it says anything meaningful about Obamacare per se. This story doesn't add anything to that debate.

Upon a computer geek/nerd basis the interesting part of the story is that due to computer software contractor failures they are having to process the applications manually. The system was built so that either it completely worked or it completely failed, with no in between.

So it seems with large complex systems it makes somewhat illogical to design it to functional completely manually and then automate the various elements. Thus should any element fail it can be handled manually whilst the rest of the system continues to function. Otherwise one bug can result in total failure, which is pretty stupid for an essential system.

So this introduces a new geek/nerd design idea, should a manual system be designed first to simulate the eventual digital outcome. This provides a hands on, readily realisable system with established protocols that all operators and users can see and readily understand. It might take up a lot of space and take a lot of skilled design and hand crafting to achieve but it could be a more logical method of representing what needs to be achieved and provides manual backup for all automated elements.

Also, a "supermajority of the people in the U.S." don't want the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think you need to take a trip back to reality, where facts are king, and simply inventing "facts" like you're doing is generally frowned upon.

Nope, I've seen the poll results. "would you rather have the government set up death panels and dictate your health care options (ACA), or let the free market work it out?" And "Would you rather have it be a crime to not buy private insurance (ACA), or have a cheap single-payer system with better care for a lower price?"

People will pick the non-ACA answer when you make the question loaded, then the people that think the ACA didn't go far enough will be counted as opponents, even if they'd rather have the ACA than the previous system.

An example of the effects of propaganda: People in Kentucky who have been signing up on Kentucky's state-run exchange have been reported saying things like "This is so much better than Obamacare, thank goodness that Kentucky set up their own program!" This is of course idiocy, since Kentucky's state-run exchange is simply a part of precisely what is being derisively referred to as "Obamacare".

But yes, Frank Luntz in particular is very very good at getting poll numbers that say whatever he wants them to say.

Reminds me of the gun control polls that ask questions like, "Do you support background checks at gun shows?" (which there already are) and then conclude that 85% of the population wants more laws.

But, seriously, even polls run by the liberal media - Obama's lapdogs - aren't showing a lot of support for this. The peak was less than a majority. Just wait until people figure out that healthcare still isn't free.

I think only 44 people caring about not getting ripped by health care companies constitutes mass stupidity.

You mean only 44 people were stupid enough to fall for the rip-off, or else in sufficiently desperate medical need.

Have you actually looked at the cost/benefit of the plans in Oregon's ACA offerings? I did. The cheapest bronze plan (and the ACA is supposed to benefit the poor right?) costs 119/mo. Sounds like a bargain right? But after considering the 5250.00 deductible, and the fact that it only covers 60% of costs after the deductible is met, you'd have to spend 198.00 a month in medical bills to break even on having insurance, vs paying out of pocket.

Maybe a silver or gold plan is better? Here's the "highest quality" silver plan according to Oregon's ACA website: 242.00/mo premiums, but it doesn't pay for itself unless you have at least 300.00/mo in health costs. Invariably the better the plan, the higher the break even point, and thus the worse the value. Of course its disguised with low copays and stuff. The only way these are worthwhile is if you have very high costs, month after month.

Oh, and those are the subsidized rates. For someone like me, with an income, the premiums will be much higher, adn therefore the break even will also be correspondingly higher.

This is a huge scam... I spend maybe 300 a year... and I'm in my mid 40s, well past the point of being a "young invincible". I pay it out of pocket through a HDHP. Why would I want to go spend 1200 a year for a super cheap plan, which won't even pay anything because I'll never even get past the deductible? My out of pocket would quintuple, up to 1500/year, with absolutely no benefit.

For "young invicibles" with health costs approaching zero, one is WAY better off paying 600/year in penalties and paying your medical costs out of pocket, than getting suckered into Obamacare.

I know it's supposed to be some sort of communistic wealth redistribution. I am supposed to pay more than my fair share so that someone else can pay less than theirs. Fuck that! Why are they so special? I work for my money, I paid my dues, and no it wasn't fun. It was sacrifice. That I paid. Where the hell is my special treatment? Maybe I should quit my job and let you all support ME for free. Raise my taxes enough, take away my motivation for work and maybe I'll do just that.

I don't think you understand what "insurance" is or how it's supposed to work. It works like this: Most people don't get their money's worth back. That's mathematically how every insurance pool in the world works. You pay in money you will likely never take advantage of for the safety of being taken care of if you happen to get the statistical short straw.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.

For example, you probably pay for car insurance. Most of the time, that's simply an expense with no benefit to you whatsoever. The reason you have it, though, is that the insurance company eats almost all of the expense if some idiot slams into your car at 90 mph on the highway.

Ditto for homeowners or renters insurance: Most of the time, it's purely expense. But if your house burns down, guess who you're going to be calling?

Medical insurance isn't really that different: Most of the time, you pay in more than you pay out. That's to offset your expenses when you discover that you have leukemia (as a generally pretty healthy friend of mine did just last Sunday). Or do you really think you have the cash on hand to just pay a $450,000 hospital bill?

You seem to have misunderstood the point of insurance. The way it works is that you pay more than you need to most of the time on the off chance that something goes horribly wrong.

The issue is that the vast majority of spending doesn't go to "the off chance something goes horribly wrong", it goes to treating a very small fraction of people [washingtonpost.com] with multiple chronic conditions. That's not catastrophe insurance, it's continued expense.

Since you made the analogy to homeowners insurance, it's the difference betwee

which brings up the main problem with the ACA: that is is simply furthering the insurance concept.yes, its better to pay only 183k instead of 450k.yes its better to have insurance than nothing.

The ACA is not some communistic redistribution welfare like the original idiot stated, its actually very capitalistic, pro free market, and follows conservative ideals. the only truly liberal thing about it is the Mediaid Expansion (which is optional). the exchanges are purely free market, and a component of EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE PROPAL.

and that is the problem: its simply a continuance of the status quo, that brings that status quo to more people.The true ultimate problem of the ACA is not that it is another entitlment program.The true ultimate problem of the ACA is that it is NOT another entitlment program.

its better than nothing, BUT we would be even better off as a nation WITH a national health care system.

We've already seen the success of single payer systems, both worldwide, and in our own nation: Medicare and Medicaid together make up the single most efficient and cost effective segment of our health care system.

We spend nearly 50% more as a nation on health care than any other nation, but our outcomes do not match our expenditures.in fact, we below average in nearly metric, other than number of MRI machines per capita. we DO NOT get what we pay for.

but if you split our system into its segments, public and private, the nubmers tell a different story. Our public segment more closely matches the cost/benefit ratios of other nations, and overspends by a much smaller amount. The private segment however jumps to a whopping 200% (or more) spent compared to other nations for the same or worse outcomes.

Not a single nation with a national health care system would trade its system for the American one.No one in these nations EVER goes bankrupt due to a medical bill. But medical bills are the number one cause of bankrupty in the US.

We have an incomplete description of this bronze plan. To qualify as an exchange-eligible plan, there will be a yearly out of pocket maximum after which insurance pays 100%. It's probably in the vicinity of $8k or so. It also must cover defined "preventative care" items 100% and those items are not subject to the deductible. The idea here is to get people to go to their doctors regularly in the hopes of catching issues early when they are the least expensive to treat. It's also intended to keep people who do have serious issues from being bankrupted by $100k and up medical bills.

"One Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 17 percent of women ages 18 to 29, and 13 percent of men, have a chronic condition such as cancer or diabetes. Federal data show that young adults have higher rates of car accidents, which could lead to pricey medical bills."

its neither a huge scam, nor are you the intended target of these plans.the ACA was not intended to bring healthcare to the entire nation.it was intended to fill the gaps, to cover the uninsured and uninsurable, not to bring insurance to those who already have it.its not some communistic redistribution scam...(though the very idea and concept of Insurance itself IS A REDISTRIBUTION CONTRACT....becauses thats teh concept of how insurance works!!!)

You dont pay more than your fair share for anyone. it is not welfare.AND ITS NOT FOR YOU, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.

You're just another typical right wing nut, completely misinformed about the ACA, its purpose, what it does, and who it affects.in short, you're an idiot, and so is whoever modded you insightful

Doctors' Offices routinely comment on what exceptional health coverage I have. I work for a massive multi-national corporation that provides great health plan choices. However, it comes at a cost. My deductible is only a couple grand and they pay between 80% and 100% of absolutely everything from doctor visits to prescriptions to surgery. I also have vision and dental.

However, my employer only covers about $260 of it. I have to pay the other $450 of it myself. That is $710/mo, combined, for one individual's health care.

And, on top of that, I'm apparently supposed to pay to contribute to this pot for other people to get their "free" scam health care (who also discover they have to pay a ridiculous amount for shitty plans - welcome to the real world!).

The funniest bit is that all these idiots bitching and moaning about it and refusing to take any coverage at all because of the expense were practically jizzing their pants the last six years over the idea that Obama gonna get them some freebies.

I sympathize with people who have little or no health coverage. It has to be horrible and frightening. However, the fact of the matter and the fact of this world is that things aren't free and better things are more expensive. Especially in health care. The solution isn't "gimme shit free you guise!". The solution has to involve targeting the fucking ridiculous expenses. Why isn't anyone doing that? The reason we have to come up with these complex bullshit schemes for "cheap/free healthcare" that is neither of those things is because the medical industry can charge such ridiculous prices to health insurers, because health insurers disperse the cost among a great number of people and institutions. To the point where people don't quite realize how bad they're getting fucked. And, instead of people saying "fuck that, stop letting them milk prices", they say "fuck that, make my fellow man pay my way!".

I do agree with the quote to some extent, however history gives us the answer.

In the 1800's the AMA (American Medical Association) began convincing states that they did not need to regulate the education of Medical doctors if they simply required that the doctor graduated from an "AMA Approved College". To date it is a requirement in ALL States in the US. Once the AMA had that in law they began increasing the requirements to become a doctor and restricting the number of allowable students per class. Thus restricting the flow of Doctors into the American market. One example of this restriction that comes to mind is Veterinarians. To be a Doctor (MD) you have 10+ years of schooling and an internship. The be a Veterinarian you have 8 Years of schooling on multiple species including Human and a Vet is capable of handling most of what a GP (General practitioner MD) does.

So, lets put this into some perspective.

There are 396 lawyers per 100,000 people in the US.There are 125 Veterinarians per 100,000 people in the US.There are 2.4 Doctors per 100,000 people in the US.

IF insurance worked as every other kind of insurance that would be fine, what we have is not health insurance though. We use insurance to go in for a cold, we use them when we get the flu, we use them for EVERY aspect of health care. that is by definition not insurance. For a car analogy it would be like putting in a claim every time we got an oil change or pumped gas even. IF we only had insurance to cover catastrophic injuries/terminal illness, and instead took care of ourselves for a common cold the system would be working much much better

The real "nerd angle" on this story has nothing to do with who's president, but rather that it's another one of Oracle's embarrassing failures. You'd have to be pretty desperate to blame anyone in D.C. for this.

This site gets more conservative every year. Currently if you don't have a shrine to Ayn Rand in your house you will be labeled a communist here.

How the hell is this a "conservative" thing?

It is a conservative matter because this story was posted here not to catalyze discussion but rather to incite another round of "liberal" bashing. Read the comments, and look at the source of this story. This is not here to drive intelligent discussion of the matter.

The problem with a lot of people is they insist on casting everything no matter how factual as a poplitical issue. This is not politcs.

No, this is politics. This story was posted to get people angry at Obama (not that any special action is required to get that to happen here). Notice that this one places blame for the matter squarely at the feet of Obama, even though the state is running its own exchange (and hence is not tethered to the problems of the federal exchange).

You know what? I like socilised healthcare.

That will earn you a large number of freaks here - welcome to the club. Prepare to be called all kinds of uncivilized things soon.

A website is a tech thing and a $300e6 website is an unusual enough tech thing to warrant being interesting

The cost is not the part that they are going after the most. They are trying to claim that the site, the ACA, the president, the democratic party, and all things that are not in line with Randian philosophy, are all epic failures. If it had been put together with all volunteer work and $100 worth of cabling for donated hardware and connectivity, the authors would still be tripping over each other to see who could bash it the hardest. And most likely, that bashing would have found its way to the slashdot front page.

Another defense of the Obama administration has attributed the troubled rollout of Obamacare to the obstruction of Republican governors who wanted to see the law fail as well as a lack of funding.

In the tiered form of American government, states cannot merely be told to do something by the federal government in most cases. This is why highway money is tied to specific road laws (seatbelts, etc), because the federal government has to financially coerce states into action (or losing tax dollars). How the Affordable Care Act doesn't have this coercion, I can only guess.

The Medicaid expansion was supposed to be a precondition of the states continuing to receive their federal Medicaid grants. The Supreme Court ruled that putting conditions on federal spending was coercive and couldn't be allowed (ponder that for a while).

Well, if the fed govt can't attach conditions to the arts funding, why should it be able to attach conditions to states continuing to receive medicaid grants. If that money is already apportioned for medical spending, then taking it away would be tantamount to threatening to bankrupt state government if they don't "volunteer" for a new federal program.

It did. The government agreed to pick up the tab for Medicaid expansion for three years, then pick up 90% of the burden for another seven years, to allow time for the states to come up with revenue sharing on their own.

Republican governors didn't want to do that, because "coming up with revenue" means they can't spend any expected savings (from cost reductions in other areas, like ER subsidies) or worse, they might have to raise taxes a fraction of a percent in a decade. Quel horreur!

So there are several problems with your criticism of the ACA and socialized medicine in general

1. the ACA and 'Obamacare' is not socialized medicine (i wish it was)...it is a federal government subsidy of personal and business insurance executed in the federal system by either the states or the federal government itself

2. Cover Oregon's online system was made by a company funded by the insurance industry

Yeah, this overtly trollish "story" appearing on slashdot is a fucking embarrassment.

Nothing to do with news for nerds. Nothing you wouldn't find on any right-wing extreme blog.

According to the linked pdf, Oregon had 20,617 applications completed. Look at the other states-- this one is going through a cluster-fuck, but liberal California, with its well-designed and fully operational web site, is doing just fine [reuters.com], thank you.

"While the federal health exchange website healthcare.gov has been brought to its knees with ongoing technological problems, Kynect had enrolled nearly 48,000 people in new health coverage, including Medicaid and private plans, as of Nov. 14, according to the state's most recent data. "#Obamacare is working in KY, an average of 1,000 people sign-up each day," Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear recently bragged on Twitter."

Seems the point is a lie. Oregon has 8752 completed applications, not 44. 44 is a lie. The site was crap. That says nothing about ACA, just that OR bit off more than it could chew, and probably should have gone with the federal default. The point was about the site, and only the site.

When you say "One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states." and then follow it up with "But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants." are you actually trying to use one state-run exchange's technical failure to undermine the other states whose exchanges are working just fine?

I ask, because if that IS what you did (and it does appear you did) you need to take a remedial course on logic.

The weak number of sign-ups undercuts two major defenses of Obamacare from its supporters. One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states.

And that defense is accurate. The state-based exchanges are doing well, on average. The only state-based exchanges that are lagging are in Oregon, Maryland, and Nevada. And the latter two are comparable to the federal exchange. Only Oregon is a real disaster.

And furthermore, the point of that defense is to counter the Republicans claiming that the problems of the federal exchange are due to the law being unworkable. The success of the exchanges in New York, New England, Kentucky, California, etc., proves that the law can work.

The fact that you can build a state exchange doesn't prove the law can work. There are many components and just being able to purchase insurance is one very small part. I'm not saying the law CAN'T work, just that you cannot draw that conclusion from one tiny piece.

Multiple [cbslocal.com] stories [latimes.com] corroborate [huffingtonpost.com] that the actual number potentially losing healthcare is one million, not the five million the AC suggested. These are policies that don't meet the ACA's minimum coverage levels, and thus are no longer allowed to be offered.

This has been a point pounded hard by those on the right ("If you like your plan you can keep it" was a lie!), wanting to point to people losing insurance. The left's typical response is that the plans are junk plans, and folks are better off being forced to get a real plan. Since those arguments are all over the web, I'm going to skip past them. Visit Google News [google.com] to find them if you have missed out.

As is often the case, reality isn't simple enough to be captured in a sound byte. The law had a provision to grandfather old plans [cnn.com]:

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet: Members have to have been enrolled in the plan before the ACA passed in 2010, and the plan has to have maintained fairly steady co-pay, deductible and coverage rates until now.

What insurers have done is made sure no pre-2010 plan stayed in effect (yes, they cancel millions of plans every year), and for the few that have they have made sure the co-pays, deductibles, and coverage have changed significantly. Why would they do that? Well there are a about 4 million people [forbes.com] on junk plans. How bad are these plans [tampabay.com]?

One example: the "Go Blue Health Services Card'' for which cancer survivor Donnamarie Palin of New Port Richey has paid $79 a month. For that, she gets $50 toward each primary care doctor visit, $15 toward each drug — but zero coverage for big-ticket items like hospital stays.

Get in a car wreck, no coverage. Get cancer, no coverage. Need a wart removed, no coverage. Break your arm, no coverage. Yeah. That bad. But they have one thing going for them, they are cheap. $79/month if you don't understand what you're (not) getting seems pretty cheap compared to hundreds of dollars for real insurance. In plain, simple terms these people were going to get a price hike. Now, you're an executive at a health insurance provider faced with the prospect that 4 million people are going to get letters saying "Your $79/month policy is going away, we'd like to offer you a $450/month policy, but it covers a lot more!" Yeah, that's going to lead to lots of bad press on the evening news.

But the way ACA was written had a convenient out. Make sure the law forced the cancellation of the plans, and then flip the narrative to say the government is canceling your plan. It should be no surprise that it took insurance executives about a nanosecond to figure this out and set the wheels in motion. Just make sure no plan qualified or could be grandfathered in.

Now that the Scooby Doo "how did they do it" moment is over, there is one bit left to tidy up. The savvy reader will notice 1 million Californians had their policy cancelled, but o

Gotta love the end of the story, where they spend more space begging for donations than the story itself took up. Not to mention the fact that if his insurer is hiking his premium a substantial amount, it probably doesn't have anything to do with the PPACA - if the insurance company were legally mandated to cancel his plan, they wouldn't just say "ok well you can keep it" while whispering "we'll do something completely illegal and breaking the law and probably get fucked in every way possible by the DoJ *ju

The number is so dismal because the Oregon website was worse then the National website. Not because people dont want it as the linked article implies.

Nearly 25,000 individuals and families have so far submitted hard-copy applications, Cox said, with nearly two-thirds of those applicants eligible for Medicaid, a federal-state healthcare plan for the needy.

But none of those applicants has actually been enrolled, with manual processing of the paperwork slowing the process dramatically.

Separately, about 70,000 residents have signed up for Medicaid by responding to letters sent by the state to more than 200,000 people deemed eligible for the program by virtue of their receiving food stamps, Cox said.

Why is the websites such a big deal then if you can submit a paper application? That is how every application to the government that I have made, passport, drivers license, SIN, has been done so far in my life. Income tax has moved online, but you can still paper file.

But, it's not a widespread commendation of the ACA law. In fact, as noted, there are significant enrollments by paper.

Also, there is a huge crunch on the backend to automate the purchasing process. Surprise, most health insurers are not set up to make it easy for people to purchase health plans online, much less handle large numbers of enrollments. Also, there is a lot of work around the small group marketplaces. The article and summary make it sound like 300 million was spent just on the web site. It's not even close. Granted the web site is just broken and heads are starting to roll.

Oh, and the main contractor for the project was Oracle, so, well, if anybody can make that much disappear they can.

What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?

What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?

Sucker.

They got you to comment, didn't they? Nobody with half a brain would waste their time typing anyth...

Nobody trusts the websites to begin with both in terms of reliability, information availability and security. People I know who've tried the Federal website have been shrugging their shoulders because its navigation sucks and they can get more information from sites like eHealthInsurance.com.

The other problem is for the rest of us in the "insured" category our premiums are going up substantially while existing plans disappear, lose choices of Hospital networks and get wonderful things we don't need anymore (at least at my age..) Maternity care because all the plans have to have it. For all of that I have a new bunch of taxes to subsidize those who can't afford it and my premiums have gone up 225% For that increase I could buy a nice summer home. This isn't the Affordable Care Act it's "you have to do it our way because we say so." Like your current doctor? He's not "In-Network" so we won't cover visits. Like that hospital you've been going to for years? "It's too expensive and we know it's 15 miles closer than the other facility, it's not in your network but you can go there for emergencies since it's the closest to you." The rationing of healthcare has begun and with it you'll pay more (for most of the middle class) and get less. Such a bargain! We should all be signing up on untested websites where you don't know how your information is handled and what they do with the PII you give them.

Your complaints about Obamacare are valid. Welcome to the only healthcare system in the world that relies primarily on for-profit insurance companies. You want to return to the status quo ante Obamacare? Well, that left tens of millions without health insurance. It would also leave you without health insurance if you had any serious medical problems. So how to address all these concerns? I've got it - copy Canada's system. Nah, too simple, too well proven, we've got to think of some brilliant approach instead.

At this rate, it's highly likely that there will be more uninsured in the U.S. over the next few years than over the last few years. That's what happens when you make a product significantly more expensive and more difficult to sell and to purchase.

If you think things are bad now, wait until next year when the business mandate that Obama unilaterally delayed kicks in. That's going to be even worse for the people who already had insurance....

zero republicans voted for this bill, you can talk all you want about how it was their bill XX years ago or whatever, it is not. It may be loosly based on some ideas that the republicans had, but the bill was written by the democrats, voted for by the democrats, and implemented by the democrats. Why you cannot admit that it is their fault I will never understand

Well it's not a healthcare system, it's an insurance system that was imposed on all of us. If we were to honestly take on the issues of costs in the healthcare system, which the ACA didn't address, that would mean taking on the Doctors, the Hospitals,the large network providers that fix prices in their favor and we left out the biggest profit whores, the drug manufacturers who were left in tact under ACA. That was what the single payer notion was about but that's anti-business and we love our business opp

Realistically there is absolutely no reason for mandatory maternity care insurance to add any cost to the insurance plan of somebody beyond child-bearing age - insurance against a nigh-impossible event is cheap, unless of course the insurance company is exploiting mandatory changes to increase profit margins (Corporations exploiting legal loopholes for profit? Never!). On the other hand your advanced years mean that you are coming in to the most expensive part of your medical life, compared to which maternity care is a drop in the bucket. IIRC a US citizen is expected to rack up something like 80% of their lifetime medical bills in their last year of life, and the decade prior isn't exactly all sunshine and lollipops.

Once again the abject failure of private companies is blamed on the government, because there are people who are too ideologically head-up-ass to look at the reality of the situation. If privatization was such a boon, all the exchanges would be working incredibly well, and they wouldn't have cost near as much.

TL;DR: Someone thought control should be handed over to private industry, Oracle was signed up to create the website, they totally screwed it up, and now the website is basically useless and for a long while wasn't even able to sign people up.

So while the public/Democrat finger pointing is good and all (and I don't know who wrote up this summary, they're totally ill informed, outside of Portland Oregon is mostly conversative, in fact here is a map http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/almanac/almanac10.htm [state.or.us] ), it's really that Oracle screwed everyone over. That's the real story, and the state is looking for a way to get their money back.

The interesting thing is that the real test of ObamaCare will not be in this website.

Yes, I suppose anti-ObamaCare people can say they couldn't even get the website right. The rest of it must be a disaster.

On the other hand, we have pro-ObamaCare people cheering when the website gets fixed or more people sign up.

I dare say, all this website stuff will be worked out eventually. It's all rather irreleevant. The real test of ObamaCare will be in its costs, subsidies, who it affects business/people, payments to medical providers, how it impacts MediCare, how it impacts innovation, how it impacts rationing, how it affects current insurance plans, how it distorts the labor market, how it reduces costs, how it provides better healthcare...

Seriously, the summary is even laughably over-spun. They are blaming this on the Obama administration while simultaneously admitting that Oregon set up a state exchange, meaning they did not require interaction from the federal website or the federal government for anything beyond certifying that people bought qualified plans. Yet we go and blame the low enrollment on Obama.

Of course, here on slashdot, anything and everything wrong in the world can be blamed on Obama and Monica Lewinsky, personally.

1. The ACA is a neoliberal kludge designed to give more people healthcare without getting rid of the for-profit insurance industry.2. The federal government hired private companies to make the federal website (to the degree that Congress would fund it).3. Oregon hired Oracle to make their state website.4. The state and federal websites both suck.5. Lots more people are signing up for Medicaid than for private insurance through the exchanges, because it's free and easier.

Now, as a liberal I look at these data points and extrapolate, "Hmm, sounds like private industry isn't automagically more efficient at everything. Heck, I bet if we just extended Medicare to everyone we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with! We could skip the whole part where we let private companies take 15% of our insurance dollars even though the federal programs manage with like 6% overhead! Seems like basically every other industrialized nation in the world has the right idea!" But I guess if you stick enough ellipses in those bullet points, you're left with "ACA... website... suck." Which proves that government is the problem and we should let the invisible hand rule, or something.

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News Channel), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).

The daily newspaper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010. On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election, releasing a series of articles critical of Obama.

Clearly a "news organ" of impeccable journalism like the Korean Central News Agency [wikipedia.org] of the Democratic Republic of North Korea or Fox news.

I never mentioned the Washington Post as an example of any kind of journalism. I did not quote the Washington Post. The Wikipedia article cited Anschutz as wanting a conservative alternative to the Washington Post. What's your point? Why bring up the Washington Post at all?

In fact, I did not quote any other news source or try to rebut the assertion that so few people signed up. I did specifically imply that the political bias of the new source should be considered. (I did this in a very snarky way, bu

I am 28 and presently uninsured. I delayed getting individual insurance because I knew my plan would be canceled at the end of this year (anybody who actually spoke with the insurance companies has known for a long time that "you can keep your plan" was a lie), so I figured I might as well wait for the Obamacare compliant plans.

Well, the Obamacare compliant plans cost literally over four times as much per month to get comparable insurance. People who went ahead and got the noncompliant plans have now got a reprieve by executive fiat; they can keep the cheap plans another year. All of the effects of this bill have been effectively canceled per dictatorial fiat except for socking it to me and others in similar conditions.

Depending on what happens with school and work, my income may be low enough that I don't need to pay the fine for being uninsured, but even if it isn't, it's better to pay the $95 fine and gamble on my health being OK than to pay $2400 for a crappy insurance plan.

The whole situation is insane. Health insurance should be like home insurance. The expected costs of home maintenance are paid out of pocket; your insurer doesn't pay your heating bill or pay to have your gutters cleaned out. Insurance is there to mitigate catastrophic risks, not to take care of your regular expected expenses for you. We do need robust assistance for those who can't pay their expected health costs, but that has nothing to do with insurance, and conflating the two won't make care more affordable. Not being able to pay your health costs is just another form of poverty; it's important to provide a safety net but this is a terrifically thickheaded way to try to go about it.

A few decades ago most people paid most of their health costs out of pocket and the country was better for it. Having employer insurance take care of everything is basically a modern tax avoidance racket. It's less efficient, the costs balloon, people without employer-provided insurance end up in more and more trouble, and the lost government revenue brings program cuts, higher deficits, or more economically disruptive ways of getting tax revenue. Insurance plans and health savings accounts should be taxed exactly like normal income and savings.

I get your drift... but two points: Obamacare actually saves money while insuring more people. (Congressional Budget Office analysis). That's because the current system of treating the poor in emergency rooms is outrageously inefficient. And secondly, doctors are not really rich. They may make more than your or me, but in the overall scheme of things it's hospital administrators, pharmaceutical company CEOs, insurance company owners, and bankers who are really really rich.

The biggest political success for Republicans in the last 30 years was convincing the middle and lower middle class to be afraid of the poor. They should instead be very very afraid of the rich.

> "The biggest political success for Republicans in the last 30 years..."

I'm a political agnostic and I truly find all the tossing of blame around in the Affordable Care Act revolting. Eventually the buck stops somewhere, and any logical person would have to admit that at this point the Affordable Care Act has been rolled out terribly.

Good intentions? Good ideas? No matter what the ideas or intentions are, the results are terrible.

Eventually the buck stops somewhere, and any logical person would have to admit that at this point the Affordable Care Act has been rolled out terribly.

One piece of the Affordable Care Act has been rolled out terribly.It's not even the most important part.

The really important pieces of the Affordable Care Act have been in place for months now.Stuff like requiring insurance companies to spend ~80% of premiums on health careand not disqualifying you because of a pre-existing condition. Or how about removing lifetime caps on coverage.

I could go on, but the Affordable Care Act has a lot of other moving pieces.Eventually people will get signed up and then all the criticism will have done naught but poison the atmosphere.

If by "rich guy" you mean everyone else with insurance offered by their employer. My same policy went up 44% next year. That is money take directly from my pocket to fund this clusterfuck. I never supported it because I knew the government would totally fuck it up.

Nonsense, you are an empowered individual. You are able to stand up for yourself and demand a fair compensation for your labor. If it isn't fair then you just need to enter the free market for labor and sell your efforts to a higher bidder. You have the power here, not the weak and besieged corporations. . .

Isn't this what the republican party and its agents have told you when they were convincing you to fear labour unions?

The real idiots are the ones who lump together all levels and branches of government for no rational reason other than they're forms of government.

That makes about as much sense as saying "What do you really expect from the EU, given the way the Chinese government tramples on human rights. Just be glad they didn't ship you off to a concentration camp."

Democrats want is to fail to prove that private enterprise can't handle healthcare and we need the government to do it.

I know of almost no one who wants the government to handle healthcare - they want the government to handle health insurance. Big difference. Doctors practices, hospitals, etc. continue to operate as separate entities. See, for example, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc. As for the wonders of Obamacare - the only system in the developed world that relies primarily on for-profit insurance companies - get back to me when it has cut costs by 1/3. That would bring us inline with the nex

Except for the republicans did not obstuct the rollout in anyway shape or form, sure they wanted to stop it from becoming law by voting "no" and they are trying to get it repealed, but they simply stayed out of the way when it comes to the actual rollout, they all voted no, and the democrats own this mess as they are in charge "the buck stops here" I recall our president saying a time or 2